Biodiesel

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will grant a full rebate on biodiesel and bioethanol fuels for road transport comparable to existing rates on liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and compressed natural gas (CNG).

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Government have already announced that, subject to European agreement, a new lower rate of duty for biodiesel, to be set at 20 pence per litre lower than ultra-low sulphur diesel, will be introduced later this year. All rates of duty are reviewed annually as part of the Budget process.

Birth Rates in the EU

Lord McColl of Dulwich: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the current birth rate in each country in the European Union; and how this compares with 1970; 1980; 1990; and 2000.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
	Letter from the National Statistician, Len Cook, dated 21 June 2002.
	As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the current birth rate in each country of the European Union and how this compares with 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000.[HL4744]
	The latest available information is for the year 2000. The data for the years requested are given in the attached table. Two rates have been provided. The crude birth rate is simply the number of births per 1,000 of the total population. The total fertility rate is also given. This measure controls for the size and age distribution of the female population of fertile age and gives the average number of children per women if the current patterns of fertility persist throughout her childbearing life.
	The information is taken from the Eurostat (the Statistical Office of the European Communities) publication, European Social Statistics Demography 2001 edition Theme 3 population and social conditions.
	
		Crude birth rate and total fertility rate, countries of the European Union, 1970–2000
		
			  Crude birth rate per 1,000 population Total fertility rate—children per woman 
			  1970 1980 1990 2000 1970 1980 1990 2000 
			 EU-15 16.2 13.0 21.0 10.7* 2.38 1.82 1.57 1.53* 
			 Belgium 14.8 12.6 12.4 11.3p 2.25 1.68 1.62 1.65* 
			 Denmark 14.4 11.2 12.3 12.6p 1.95 1.55 1.67 1.76* 
			 Germany 13.5 11.1 11.4 9.2p 2.03 1.56 1.45 1.34p 
			 Greece 16.5 15.4 10.1 9.6* 2.39 2.21 1.39 1.30* 
			 Spain 19.6 15.3 10.3 9.8* 2.90 2.20 1.36 1.22* 
			 France 16.7 14.9 13.4 13.1p 2.47 1.95 1.78 1.89p 
			 Ireland 21.8 21.8 15.1 14.3* 3.93 3.23 2.11 1.89 
			 Italy 16.7 11.3 10.0 9.4 2.42 1.64 1.33 1.25* 
			 Luxembourg 13.0 11.4 12.9 13.1 1.98 1.49 1.61 1.78 
			 Netherlands 18.3 12.8 13.2 13.0p 2.57 1.60 1.62 1.72p 
			 Austria 15.0 12.0 11.7 9.6 2.29 1.65 1.45 1.32* 
			 Portugal 20.8 16.2 11.8 12.0* 2.83 2.18 1.57 1.54* 
			 Finland 14.0 13.2 13.1 11.0 1.82 1.63 1.78 1.73 
			 Sweden 13.7 11.7 14.5 10.2 1.92 1.68 2.13 1.54 
			 United Kingdom 16.2 13.4 13.9 11.4 2.43 1.90 1.83 1.64 
		
	
	* Estimate in that year made by Eurostat
	Provisional data

People Aged over 60 in the EU

Lord McColl of Dulwich: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What estimate they have of the current number of people over 60 years of age in each country in the European Union; and how it compares with estimates for 1970; 1980; 1990; and 2000.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
	Letter from the National Statistician, Len Cook, dated 21 June 2002.
	As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question concerning the number of people over 60 years of age in each country in the European Union. [HL4747]
	The attached table, provided by Eurostat, the Statistical Office of the European Communities, shows the number of persons over the age of 60 from 1970–2001 for each country in the European Union.
	
		Table 1: Persons aged over 60, European Union countries, 1970–2001
		
			  Year(1) 
			 Country 1970 1980 1990 2000 
			 Austria 1,400.9 1,370.6 1,468.7 1,540.2 
			 Belgium 1,719.2 1,688.9 1,918.1 2,133.1 
			 Denmark 802.2 939.1 998.5 995.5 
			 Federal Republic of Germany 14,411.0 14,319.9 15,179.3 17,646.0 
			 Finland 593.6 736.5 861.7 969.8 
			 France 8,563.7 8,777.4 10,173.0 11,572.7 
			 Greece n/a n/a 1,863.3 2,322.2 
			 Ireland n/a n/a 506.3 539.1 
			 Italy 7,954.5 9,053.1 10,927.2 13,049.6 
			 Luxembourg n/a 61.2 67.2 78.7 
			 Netherlands 1,757.8 2,077.8 2,436.5 2,720.6 
			 Portugal 1,117.0 1,414.9 1,732.0 2,119.8 
			 Spain n/a 5,260.6 6,847.6 8,239.5 
			 Sweden 1,456.0 1,713.1 1,863.7 1,869.8 
			 United Kingdom 9,732.1 10,521.6 11,332.8 11,579.0 
		
	
	(1) The estimated populations are as of the 1st January each year
	Source: Eurostat

Parliamentary Cost Comparisons

Viscount Tenby: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the annual cost of maintaining the European Parliament, the House of Commons and the House of Lords, including:
	(a) salaries, pensions, travelling allowances, secretarial expenses and other expenses for Members;
	(b) salaries, allowances and pensions and other costs of support staff;
	(c) accommodation, including rent, operating costs and security; and
	(d) all other administrative costs such as stationery, office equipment, publications, payments to parliamentary bodies and other relevant outgoings;
	and whether they will indicate the per capita cost per Member as well as the average number of sitting days for each institution for 2001–02 and for each of the previous four years.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The information for the years 1997–98 and 1998–99 was given in my Answer of 22 July 1999 (WA 129-30).
	The information for 1999–2000 was given in my Answer of 5 July 2000 (WA 133) and the information for 2000–01 was given in my Answer of 12 July 2001 (WA 87). The information for 2001–02 is as follows.
	
		Total Costs
		
			  £ millions 
			 House of Lords 56.3 
			 House of Commons (5) 253.7 
			 European Parliament (1) 614.2 
			 of which UK cost is 61.0 
		
	
	
		
			 Per capita cost per member £'000 
			 House of Lords (2) 84 
			 House of Commons (6) 385 
			 European Parliament (3) 981 
		
	
	
		
			  Number of sitting days 
			 House of Lords 134 
			 House of Commons (7) 143 
			 European Parliament (4) 138 
		
	
	(1) Based on calendar years and average £/eu exchange rate for the relevant year. The cost to the UK is derived from the UK's financing share after abatement.
	(2) Per capita cost based on the number of Peers eligible to sit in the House of Lords at the beginning of each year. The number of Peers has reduced significantly since the House of Lords Act 1999, when 655 hereditary Peers ceased to be Members from November 1999.
	(3) The number of European Parliament seats increased from 518 to 567 in June 1994 and has increased since to its present total of 626.
	(4) In 2001–02 the European Parliament sat for 138 days. This includes plenary sessions as well as part-plenaries, committee days and political group days in Brussels. In addition, there were 14 constituency days.
	(5) The total cost of the House of Commons includes capital costs in respect of new parliamentary buildings.
	(6) Per capita costs based on 659 members.
	(7) The number of sitting days for the House of Commons in 2001–02 was 224, including Westminster Hall sittings.
	(1&3) The sterling cost of the European Parliament fluctuates due to changes in the value of the euro relative to sterling.

Convention on the Future of Europe: Members of the House of Lords

Lord Howell of Guildford: asked the Leader of the House:
	What role Members of the House of Lords will play in the Standing Committee on the Convention on the Future of Europe proposed by the Leader of the House of Commons.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Members of the House of Lords will be able to attend the Standing Committee, ask questions and contribute to debate. In addition, the two Members who are alternate representatives at the convention will be able to make statements to the new committee and answer questions. While there will be some procedural limitations on Members of this House (they will not be entitled to vote, move any Motion or count towards the quorum) these limitations would not prevent either the alternates from reporting or other Members of this House from debating the issues considered at the convention.

Convention on the Future of Europe: Members of the House of Lords

Lord Howell of Guildford: asked the Leader of the House:
	Whether the proposal tabled by the Leader of the House of Commons for a Standing Committee on the Convention on the Future of Europe will operate under House of Commons rules or House of Lords rules.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The committee will operate under House of Commons rules.

Convention on the Future of Europe: Members of the House of Lords

Lord Howell of Guildford: asked the Leader of the House:
	Whether Members of the House of Lords will receive notice of timings of meetings, place of meetings and minutes in relation to the Standing Committee on the Convention on the Future of Europe proposed by the Leader of the House of Commons.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Members of the House of Lords will receive notice of the meetings of this committee as they do of other House committees—i.e. in the minutes of proceedings; in the Committee Office Weekly Agenda (available from the PPO); by way of daily committee broadsheets posted around the House and on the screen in the Central Lobby; and on the website. Members of the European Union Committee will also receive notice directly from their clerk. Any other Member wishing to receive information about the meetings of this committee directly (either on paper or by email) is invited to contact the Clerk of the European Union Committee on extension 6083.

Convention on the Future of Europe: Members of the House of Lords

Lord Howell of Guildford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they propose to contribute to the work of the proposed Standing Committee on the Convention on the Future of Europe in which Members of the House of Lords are invited to participate.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The primary purpose of the Standing Committee is to allow the parliamentary representatives to the convention to report back to Parliament about the work of the convention. The Government stand ready to assist the committee in its work, once it has constituted itself and considered what further contributions it would wish.

MMR Vaccine

Lord Swinfen: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What immunopathological studies they have undertaken, or propose to undertake, to establish whether a pathogenic factor can be identified in children who react adversely to the measles, mumps and rubella jab.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Adverse reactions known to be associated with combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccines and contraindications for MMR are listed in the product information for the MMR products. These are also described in Immunisation Against Infectious Disease (a copy of which is available in the Library) and are detailed in materials for parents, such as "MMR—The Facts" . In many cases, as with most medicines and vaccines, the risk factors for the development of adverse reactions to MMR vaccine are not known.
	The Department of Health has recently funded an international study, to be conducted by the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, to assess further proposed immunopathological mechanisms for the postulated association between measles virus and MMR vaccines and the development of autism and inflammatory bowel disease.
	The safety of MMR vaccines is kept under continuous review by the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) and the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM). Any new research that may emerge in relation to possible immunopathological risk factors for adverse reactions to MMR vaccines would be carefully reviewed by the MCA and CSM.

Casualty Watch Survey

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their response to the national Casualty Watch survey published by the Association of Community Health Councils in England and Wales.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Department of Health has carefully considered the Casualty Watch survey. We feel that the survey provides only a partial picture of accident and emergency departments. As a snapshot of the service, it does not compare the progress that is being made in the National Health Service over time.

National Service Framework for Older People

Baroness Cumberlege: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How much money was allocated for the implementation of the National Service Framework for Older People; and whether they will provide a detailed breakdown on how the money has been spent.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Government are making available by 2003–04 an extra £1.4 billion for new investment in health and social services for older people: £900 million of this extra investment will be for the development of intermediate care services to promote independence and improve the quality of care for older people.
	In addition to this, £120 million is being made available over the next three years to convert Nightingale wards for older people into facilities that are more respectful of the dignity that older pople should be afforded.

EU Transport Council, 17 June

Lord Dubs: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What was the outcome of the EU Transport Council held on 17 June.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: The Transport Council was held on 17 June in Luxembourg. My right honourable friend the Minister for Transport, Mr Spellar, represented the UK.
	The Council adopted two directives on passenger vessel safety. The first of these requires compliance by 2015 by all member states with the higher standards of damage stability for ro-ro passenger ships engaged on international voyages already introduced following the Estonia disaster by eight EU countries, including the UK (the Stockholm agreement). These requirements are complementary to the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) standard, aimed at increasing the survivability of damaged ro-ro vessels. The very large majority of UK ro-ro ferries have already been altered to comply with the Stockholm standard and those few remaining will be altered as necessary before the deadline of September 2002.
	The second directive on safety of passenger ships makes a number of technical amendments to the existing directive 98/18. I would particulary draw attention to provisions bringing into Community law the IMO rules and standards on high speed craft and placing a duty on member states to encourage owners to improve accessibility to their ships for people with limited mobility.
	The Council reached agreement on a directive to open the market for the provision of services, including cargo handling and pilotage, in large and medium-sized ports. For service contracts, there will be maximum durations of 10, 15 and 36 years (plus a possible further 10 years), respectively, for services with no significant investment, services with significant investment in movable assets, and services with significant investment in immovable assets. In addition, the UK argued successfully for a 40-year period for new ports in the future. The agreed text includes a number of other significant changes which meet many of the concerns we have had on the Commission's original proposals, including protecting working conditions for port workers. The Commission said it would come forward with guidelines as soon as possible to address the important issue of competition between ports.
	The Council did not reach agreement on a regulation establishing a programme (the Marco Polo programme) to succeed the PACT programme for the promotion of combined transport. The Marco Polo programme would offer Community financial support for modal shift projects, with a budget of E85 million and various thresholds for different types of eligible project. The UK joined other member states in arguing that there should be a reduced budget.
	The Commission reported on the need for further action in Europe in the field of maritime security. This would be principally within the framework of the IMO.
	The Council was unable to agree conclusions on the Commission's transport White Paper of September 2001 which proposes a range of measures to address significant issues such as congestion, safety and the environmental impact of transport. During the debate Mr Spellar was one of a number of Ministers to reject any reference in the conclusions to tax harmonisation. He also referred to the need to update the existing Eurovignette Directive to allow member states to proceed with implementing distance-based charging schemes. Following the debate, the Presidency issued conclusions.
	The Council did not agree a common position on amendment of the Trans-European Network Guidelines. Discussion centred principally on the new list of priority projects. More work will be done on this in preparation for consideration by Ministers during the Danish Presidency.
	The Commission presented a proposal for Community accession to the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and the IMO. It will be seeking a mandate from the Council to negotiate with these organisations.
	The Council reached agreement on a decision agreeing Community accession to the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol), the pan-European body co-ordinating air traffic management. The agreement is subject to parliamentary scrutiny reservations being lifted.
	There were Presidency Conclusions noting the large degree of support among member states for the Single European Sky and the agreement of member states to make progress by 2004 in line with the conclusions of the Barcelona European Council. The conclusions also noted the importance of Eurocontrol in the process.
	The Council unanimously adopted a common position on a directive on occurrence reporting in civil aviation, establishing a common framework for dealing with safety-related incidents. There was agreement on a draft regulation requiring member states to provide aviation statistical returns.
	The Commission presented a proposal on subsidy and unfair pricing by third country airlines, noting that some third countries had offered substantial financial support to their airlines, which had an impact on Community carriers.
	The Presidency reported on discussions over lunch about aviation war-risk insurance. The Council believed that state intervention should be limited to avoid market restriction, but that possible mutualisation schemes should be examined.
	The Council reached agreement on a directive tightening existing Community legislation on seat-belt wearing. A compromise was reached on an exemption for school buses which will last for five years. We have some concern at the lack of respect for subsidiarity in this proposal and this was made clear to the Council. In our view, it is appropriate to have a broad framework at EU level, leaving details of implementation to member states.
	The Council did not reach agreement on a regulation on ecopoints for the transit of HGVs through Austria. This would have allowed extension of the ecopoint system beyond the current expiry date of 31 December 2003, but not beyond 2006, pending the forthcoming adoption of legislation on EU-wide infrastructure charging. The Commission concluded that in 2004 the Ecopoint system would finish. The Presidency hoped that imminent high level discussions among key member states would lead to a solution of the problem of Alpine transit.